| 3. Fundamental Integration -> Hermeneutics -> Seven Reasons for One Word One Meaning |
Inductively Deriving One Meaning per Word
Deductive Thinking in Beliefs and Concepts is Fallacious Thinking for Seven Reasons.
(1) Doctrine Chaotic. Otherwise, study of doctrine would be totally chaotic. The derivation of the meaning of a Greek word applying to a doctrine (such as faith, believe, repentance, etc.) in the Bible is most logically derived by inductive consideration of all contexts to derive a corresponding one word translation, instead of just whatever different meanings in any number of different contexts may allow. Otherwise, any study of that doctrine in the translation would be totally chaotic and inaccurate.
We make this assumption based not only upon child common sense but upon the scriptures which indicate that each and every verbally inspired word of God is pure,no mixture or synonyms or multiple disparate meanings. In following this rule given to us, we think, in scripture, it is amazing, the understanding of His Word that is derived when all the words concerning doctrine and even prepositions involved that are derived by these inductive thinking rules.
(2) Fallacious Reasoning. The rules of inductive thinking in themselves in their logic, common sense, and practicality make this method far superior to an established fallacious method of deductively making assertions first of what we may individually (with personal biases) think something should say, and conveniently redefine in translation whatever contradicts or can't be easily explained away. This is modern Bible translation today, called dynamic translation, as well as modern interpretation. It is plainly irrational nonfactual subjective nonsense. It is like a literary teacher asking the students to each give their individual interpretations and applications of some words from Shakespeare,a pedantic mental masturbation of subjectivity.
(3) Nonsensical Applications. The "One Interpretation, Many Applications" rule of hermeneutics taught within all Bible schools are likewise demonstrated to be nonsensical. For instance, the mantra taught in Bible schools that "a verse can have only one interpretation or meaning but many applications," could not possibly be true if several words in that one verse could have more than one meaning. This would give every verse several valid interpretations or meanings from the start and thereby, many more different and disparate possible applications.
However, all who teach this mantra are very pleased to teach that one word may have multiple meanings or even have synonyms. Taken together, they are incoherent among all their collective teachings, but they are unaware of their contradictory teachings. Amazingly, they blame their doctrinal differences on the "stupidity" of the other.
(4) Subjective. This subjective modern translation methodology of totally contradictory and extremely over written and corrected Greek texts of a very sparse number of historically discarded Greek texts is a modern day idiocy. Herman Hoskier, in Codex B And Its Allies, shows over 3000 differences between B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sianaticus) in the Gospels alone. What do they really say? Nonsense. It is anybody's guess, so you can make up your own translation to say most anything. Is it any wonder that the reprobates Wescott and Hort wanted to start all New Age translations upon the basis of these plants? And to make matters worse a so-called "Dynamic Translation" methodology is done to give us the interpreted "subjective sense of the meaning" which is no more than any translators imaginative bias.
We recommend using the Textus Receptus translations of the 98-99% of extant Greek manuscripts (Majority Text) today to use this objective inductive process. These Greek texts themselves are more consistent and word for word related especially when relating to historical foundational doctrines. The translators themselves of the Textus Recptus Majority Text were also apparently more careful to render a more consistent single word translation in all the different contexts to make doctrinal studies coherent. This is what we find in studying them. Using a Textus Recptus translation is not going to affect inductive study as much as modern translations. Inductive study of many modern translations (inconsistent, redefined, and free associated words) using the Wescott and Hort inventions of the Alexandrian texts only results in much nonsense and confusion.
(5) Prevents Improvement. By the very nature of deductive thinking, it is impossible for those who have dedicated their "Bible" living upon deductive thinking to change their beliefs in memorized doctrines and to modify or change their mantras about scriptures they have memorized. There is little possibility for them to grow in knowledge of our Lord and Savior and in an understanding of His Word. The deductive thinking process allows no means of considering any other possibilities than those previously memorized deductively in their Bible schools or Seminaries. This is only an emotionalized memorized assertion, and then the person makes every scripture or anything "mean" or relate to that memorized assertion.
Where in this process is there any means of adjusting our beliefs from different or new information? There is none. This is why most people reading this article on Hermeneutics will be totally frustrated and unable to understand it. Most people do only deductive thinking, especially if they went to Bible school where fallacious and demonic deductive thinking is like the blessedness of motherhood.
This is also the thinking process of all excessive practices, whether national, racial, political, or religious. They can only think about a subject according to their pre-memorized and emotionalized assertions. Like the scriptures say, they are given up to believing a lie. They cannot help themselves, except to be granted repentance and turn to a new self identity (explained later under Four Laws of the Natural Mind in this article and also in Principles of Existence article.)
Inductive thinking allows change. If there are any antimonies (contradictions) introduced among all the facts known, or if more facts become known, then a different inference (conclusion) may be drawn. This method always allows and even insists upon change when different additional evidence is given. Only this type of thinking is allowed in true science or in any "renewing of your minds" that you may prove....(Romans 12:2 and Titus 3:5). Otherwise, there could be no change or advances in science or growing in "the knowledge of Him." There can be no change or advances in understanding doctrines without inductive thinking.
Deductive thinking in Bible schools is not without its purpose. You will stay brainwashed. Has any Bible school trained pastor you have ever known ever changed any of their beliefs since coming out of any of the many very different doctrinal Bible schools? The answer is largely an overwhelming NO! Starting in deductive thinking is delusional, does not permit change relating to factual reality, and easily can move into any other delusions. This explains how they can only regress into ecumenicalism eventually accepting anything. Billy Graham and Robert Schuller are prime examples. (See article on Fundamental Faith and New Age Changes, illustrating this.)
In advancing in more delusions, the only change one generally sees in them is turning to apostasy in doctrines of ecumenicalism(s), saying "doctrines don't matter, tolerance is the most important." This is the progress in deductive delusional thinking eventually ending in total apostasy, or in extreme, accepting even Satanism. This is what the Vatican II (1962-1965) of Roman Catholicism has moved toward, saying that even an atheist will go to Heaven. The popular Ecumenical teachers and preachers of today applaud these same Catholics.
Deductive thinking is the devil's prescribed way of thinking and concluding; it leads to perdition. Nothing good comes from it. It is an end in itself.
(6) Divisions Caused. This is one of the major causes of all the Denominations and sects within Christianity. This mantra of "one word many meanings" gives every verse several equally valid interpretations or meanings, as described above. This does not give them pause, however. Like robots captivated in a spell, they continue teaching that a scriptural word may have multiple meanings or even have synonyms. This thinking paralysis is due solely to the deductive thinking process (demon thinking gives demon blindness).
All the different denominations, with their divisions based upon this irrational hermeneutic method, are totally incoherent among all their collective teachings taken together, but they are blind to that fact. And they are all looking at the same Word. Amazingly, they blame these differences on "stupidity" of the other, but aren't they all being blind as to the one obvious cause? All their invalid thinking, deductive thinking-- is the cause. An assertion that one word can have multiple meanings is the cause.
They are saying that apples are oranges and even bananas and sometimes even grapes or carrots or beets or beef steak or a car engine or an airplane, and on and on. They all violate the Rational Law of Consistent Comparisons which we shall discuss later in this article.
(7) Either Liberalism or Legalism Results. Any resistance to an inductive method of exegesis of scripture means that the person insists upon deductive interpretation and invariably has one of two problems. (If we allow for functionally reasonable sanity within reality, not totally insane.)
[[[First, we should understand that when a person usually processes all information in a dysfunctional manner, his mental choices are limited, that this is classified a mental "illness" by modern medical definition. After studying Deductive Fallacies and their effects in the section below, you will understand that the person actually has limited choices within his dysfunctional mental processing when he does deductive thinking.]]]
Again, when a person rejects inductive thinking (original man or Holy Spirit thinking), he will be found in one of two extremes.
- The person really sees no need to carefully interpret scripture. He cannot think that it is verbally inspired as with every word pure for expressing infallible Truth. Therefore, only the general meaning is important. Even in applying the scripture that every word is pure, he would interpret that in the most general sense as most other scriptures. In this he may be an atheist, or a liberal heretic or apostate Ecumenical, or even a New Age Fundamentalist, but not a historic Fundamentalist by definition. This person is simply the mentality of a worldly reprobate, going according to his flesh nature. This is no mystery. He is easily discerned. This is the typical modern translator of "higher critical" intelligence, who very proudly thinks all written words are equivocal and all dictionaries and Lexicons are a great spiritual blessing. Of course, we know that exactly the opposite is true. Liberalism (accepting worldly standards) is pure blindness only. Any relationship to God is not important to them.
- The person says he believes that an English KJV translation is infallible and without error, therefore, must not be subjected to word for word comparison for interpretation or understanding. He insists all the different meanings of one Greek word are given by the Holy Spirit, and that settles any discussion. Using a basic Greek word for word comparison in scripture in all contexts, comparing spiritual to spiritual, is completly dismissed by them. For them, it must mean exactly what the English translation says, no more and no less. This is, I am sorry to say, a Fundamentalist who vigorously insists that the King James translators (who were mostly Calvinists, and also completely obedient to King James's 14 demonic mandates given to them to obediently obey during the translation ) were superior humans who gave the world an infallible translation ONLY in English, regardless of any spiritual to spiritual comparison at all. This arrogant fellow is in trouble, and he doesn't know it. Again, they are blinded by demon deductive thinking just like the godless "higher critic." Legalism gives blindness also, BUT with anger and hatred. A relationship to God is important to them.
This importance of a perceived relationship to God (whether real or not), is what energized the demonically blinded legalistic Pharisees to crucify our Lord in emotional fear and rage. The totally demonically blinded worldly godless sinners of our Lord's time couldn't care less. We have good reason to believe that these Fundamentalists of the second group have GREAT FEAR concerning this because they get violently angry and express real hatred to those who espouse the Textus Receptus but do not think an English translation is infallible. Anger is always a mask of fear " in humans". Anger in humans is our flesh natures' deceitful way of denying fear. Righteous anger in a human being is an oxymoron. Only God can have righteous anger. The Bible teaches this. We covered this in the article, Principles of Existence.
These people are a few of the professed and acclaimed Fundamentalists. I am intrigued by the question of what are they afraid? Could an instinctual "against the law of my mind" (Rom. 7:23) be operating, giving them an uneasy cognitive dissidence that something could be wrong with their thinking but not cognitively allowed consideration. The instinctual human rules of Exclusive Truth verses Consistent Comparisons, are surfacing to make them fearful of being wrong on something in scripture. To inductive thinkers, this won't bring them fear at all, since it is the way they go through life, constantly adjusting to new perceived Truth, according to these rules. On the other hand, these deductive thinkers are made instinctually very uneasy, perhaps fearful or angry, as explained. The reader must read the following section on Rational Laws of the Natural Mind to understand this paragraph.
To ALL deductive thinkers, this is a terrifying subliminal perception that "HE" could be wrong. Since they do NOT consider that "I could be wrong" as simply a life style of the deductive thinkers, but always a place of repentance for inductive thinkers. Deductive thinkers are instinctually a condemnation of themselves. This is why the scriptures say,
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3:11). They rise in a "flesh" energized defensive emotional outrage. In any questioning of their thinking. The reason deductive thinkers are violently defensive is because the very ground (the legal right of presence) of deductive thinking was something of the flesh ("the" demon gate) that was being promoted at the start. The root of deductive thinking always involves demonic legal ground. This is always given by the individual through his flesh nature. This is a simple real life application of one of the principles given to us in James 3:15 context concerning anger and strife. Perfect Love casts out fear (from demons); this fact also betrays the origin of their raging emotions.
Now, those deductive thinkers who insist the English KJV is inerrant, have the same problem. Of course, their anger and even murderous intentions will be stated to be against any person that would suggest that their KJV "English translation" could contain inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Truly, these angry brothers (???) are to be pitied. They even think their anger is "righteous." Dear Father forgive us.
Historically, verbal inspiration has historically only been claimed for the Greek autographs and the copies insofar as they represent the originals. This is clearly stated in most historical Creeds addressing the subject. This is why it is so important to make an informed choice between the two Greek manuscript text types (the Majority or 98% of all historic Greek manuscripts since Christ accepted by all the world's churches till about 1950 AD - OR-- the Alexandrian Egyptian Greek manuscripts 400 AD of Westcott and Hort's 1881 invention, called the RSV, Revised Standard Version from which all Modern translations come today, except one first published in 2016) offered today. It has always been "what are the Greek manuscripts that most represent the originals?" The substantive primary question has never been which is the infallible translation? This is outside the realm of the common sense of anyone. This is also the subject switching that the liberals do to defend the New Age translations from the Alexandrian texts.
Only booksellers with copyright royalties and New Age Ecumenicals with an agenda argue about "better translations." As said so often, the devil's tall tail sign of deductive reasoning (person with an agenda) is often betrayed by subject switching (proper translation instead of proper text). This is exactly the phenomenon we see today with polemics about translations. This is a subtle variation of the demonic Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis explained earlier. This is simply a deceptive method of subject switching, trying to get people to think deductively with them. Deductive thinkers switch the subject to translations instead of the proper Greek text as their only means to covertly and underhandedly defend their assertions.
But for someone today to insist that a group of men making one translation into one modern language produced an infallible translation should make the evening church news around the world. It has been unknown in the history of Christianity, or child common sense, for that matter. They say to the amazement of most students who are to study to show themselves approved, "But if the Bible cannot be (not saying it is) perfect in English or any language then God hasn't preserved his Word." This is of such a magnitude of manifest arrogance that even the English language is not adequate to properly detail it. This is really pitiful. 1 See footnote.
These are people within Fundamentalism who insist upon deductive thinking also. Deductive thinking is characterized by "closed concrete compartmentalized delusional conclusions." They don't seem to consider the details of facts in their polemics relating to differences in the facts themselves and in applications, for instance. We have this phenomenon even in Fundamentalism. But the sine qua non of New Age Fundamentalism or New Evangelicalism is this type of thinking. They are the advanced practitioners of deductive thinking. The reason for this is explained below under Four Laws of Human Mind, and specifically Law of Exclusive Truth explained later in this article.
These are the people that scream and thumb their chests and throw the most gorilla dust. Although they would be the last to admit it, it is from these "strict legalist concrete compartmentalized" thinkers that come most of the present day well known liberal "Catholic fellowshiping and any religion goes to Heaven" teachers. Many started out as so-called Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is not to be blamed. It is composed of many deductive thinkers just as the more advanced in deductive thinkers who are within all the Ecumenical groups and entire world system.
It is to this type of deductive thinkers that we had the Salem Witch Hunt Trials and murders and beatings among the Reformers or Fundamentalist Puritans in New England, or the atrocities of fiendish tortures and murders by the Catholic Church throughout the ages of all who disagree with them. Deductive thinking is an equal opportunity among everyone in satan's world.
Our society is sick with deductive thinkers. Some are just more advanced in their illness than others. They can be discerned by their belief systems. The most advanced in this illness are the satanists. They are totally given to deductive thinking, the thinking of darkness, of totally reprobate minds. Less advanced in deductive thinking, but getting there, are the Ecumenical preachers today, and even more advanced are some "word of faith" Charismatics on Trinity Broadcasting Network.
[For more of an understanding of how this thinking progression from Fundamentalist to liberal New Ecumenical to Satanist occurs one need understand the self-evident (instinctually known) Laws of the Natural Sound Mind (explaining "the law of my mind" of Rom. 7:22,23) later in this article, specifically the Law of Exclusive Truth and our giving darkness a ground for working in this regard.]
Continue to Next Article -»
|
